Shields set in frames of scroll-work, without mantlings, were prevalent from the beginning of the seventeenth century. For an example, see a signet of Fetherston, 1638, engraved in the Visitation of Warwick (Harleian Society).
From about 1670 cornucopiæ, with flowers, &c., appear, supporting shields more or less egg-shaped; and some of them are most exquisitely engraved. But even at so late a date, I have not observed tincture lines introduced.
I have noticed very few seals about this time in the Jacobean taste. Probably no room was left in so confined a space for scroll-work around the base of the shield. But mantlings—rather heavy, although not voluminous, and kept up pretty high—are found towards the end of this seventeenth century. In many cases also, at this time, plain Georgian shields occur, without mantling.
Early in the eighteenth century seals are found in late Jacobean frames, open and with trellis-work, adorned with rushes and flowers, and without mantlings.
The influence of Chippendale taste strongly affected seals from about 1750 to 1775.
Many followed in the style of Adam, with ribbons and festoons of flowers, and sometimes lightly scrolled frames. These, of course, are without mantlings.
We are thus brought to the end of the eighteenth century. Only occasionally have I met with mantlings between about 1740 and 1800; but I must explain that it is very difficult to get together a body of examples of the eighteenth century: such are not old enough to be figured in engravings, and documents likely to bear them are not of sufficient interest to be examined for any other purpose. I trust fellow-students who read this book will sketch, with their dates, all instances of this epoch: it is only in that way we can get together a body of evidence.
It seems to have been very common, also, for successive generations to repeat the style of their seals, as if that were as important as the heraldry displayed; and thus instances of the several variations occur, perhaps, much later than their legitimate dates—as classified above, from many examples. I know one family whose seals from 1718 to 1840 show, with only one or two exceptions, "the tasteless though still prevalent form" No. 80, and without any mantlings.
Although taking Drawings and Stone Carvings together, there are certain differences observable in each; for instance, we constantly find, in monumental sculptures of the sixteenth century, designs with mantlings above and scroll-work below, which very closely correspond with Jacobean book-plates and engravings such as did not appear till about 1720. I would refer to Thoroton's History of Notts, p. 227; where is engraved a monument, at Wollaton, to Henry Willoughby, who died 1581, which is quite Jacobean in taste and treatment. Another equally so is at Newark-upon-Trent Church: this was erected in 1661, to Thomas Atkinson (Thoroton's Notts, p. 200). Another with cornucopiæ and scrolls stands in West Lake Church, to the memory of Richard Mansfield, who died 1624 (Thoroton's Notts, p. 27). This last exactly corresponds with some of Hollar's beautiful designs, in Sandford's Genealogical History, published in 1677; and it is very remarkable that these are a distinct advance upon Hollar's own designs in the preface and dedication to the Bysse edition of Nicholas Upton, which he engraved in 1654; while for nearly fifty years this monumental example had stood in West Lake Church, and we know it was only one of many similar English works. I have many times noticed that sculpture precedes engravings or paintings. It is, I think, inherently so: designing in the round comes first, to be afterwards translated, by skilful and artistic and educated shading, into the flat.